WC CWF Health District Board Minutes - 10/26/2012WICHITA FALLS -WICHITA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH BOARD MINUTES
October 26, 2012
Wichita Falls -Wichita County Public Health District RECEIVED ON
1700 Third Street - Parker Conference Room CITY CLE K'S OFFICE
Wichita Falls, Texas
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Sutton, M.D., Chair
Lauren Jansen, R.N., M.S.N., Ph.D., Vice -Chair
Robin Moreno, M.T., Secretary
David Carlston, Ph.D.
Clay Clark, D.V.M.
Tracy Hill, D.D.S.
Scott Plowman
MEMBERS ABSENCE EXCUSED:
None
Lou Kreidler, R.N., B.S.N.
Amy K. Fagan, M.P.A.
Not Present
Not Present
Not Present
Ray Gonzalez
DATE:_/=_/1=/_.3
Board Members
Director of Health
Assistant Director of Health
Health Authority
Assistant City Manager
Council Liaison
County Commissioner
I. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS
Dr. Sutton called the Board of Health meeting to order at 12:00 pm after a quorum of members was
attained.
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE MEETING MINUTES AND ABSENCES
Dr. Sutton called for the review and approval of minutes from the last meeting held on June 15, 2012. Scott
Plowman introduced a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Dr. Hill seconded the motion.
Motion passed unanimously.
At this time it was noted all members present.
III. ANIMAL ORDIANCE
Animal Services Center Administrator Katrena Mitchell presented the Proposed Animal Services Ordinance
Restraint Requirements.
In August at the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee (ASAC) meeting Councilor Smith discussed the
ongoing topic of chaining issues. The current City Tether Ordinance coincides with State guidelines that
dogs cannot be tethered between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am the hours that Animal Control Officers (ACO) do
not work. Assistant City Attorney Peter Scott and the legal team came up with the following ordinance
based on the ASAC proposition not to be able to tether your animal in any form or fashion.
Sec. 14-###: Restraint Requirements
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person owning, harboring or in possession of any dog to restrain the dog
on that person's property with a chain or tether unless the chain or tether is held by an individual.
"Restraint" includes chaining, tying, or fastening a chain or tether to any stationary or inanimate
object.
(b) Any person owning, harboring, or in possession of any dog within the City must restrain that dog at
all times it is outdoors on that person's property by means of a leash or lead or by a secure fence. A
fence shall not be considered secure when and if the dog may clearly pass through, under, or over
the fence or any gate of the fence is not securely latched.
(c) This section does not apply to a temporary restraint during a lawful animal event, veterinary
treatment, grooming, training or law enforcement activity, or to any other lawful confinement or
restraint.
Katrena Mitchell stated citizens will not be able to have dogs tied out for any reason they will have to be
holding a leash. Through research for statistics it was determined that 2 to 3 calls a week are related to
chained animals, as the weather gets colder the calls increase. Call outs to check on the welfare of dogs
concerning access to food, water, and/or shade, most often those dogs are chained. It was estimated 25 to
30% of dogs in the community are chained.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated their dog will run off if not tied to a tree while his wife does yard work and
this ordinance would not allow it.
Lou Kreidler stated Commissioner Gonzalez made a good point that there are those dogs if not tethered or
restrained in some manner are going to get loose.
Dr. Hill asked the purpose of the need to not tether dogs, is it inhumane, in which Katrena Mitchell
responded that the dog does not get the socialization and exercise, also for the protection of the public and
the dog. A dog tethered for its whole life not being socialized that gets loose can chase after people and
other animals.
Dr. Clark stated his favor of the no tether provision for the same reasons Katrena stated, it is not fair to the
dog. The dog is behind the curve socially both with people and other animals.
Dr. Carlston was concerned with what the provisions are for those animals the citizens are unable to keep
due to the inability to redo or put a fence in their yard. Katrena Mitchell said the citizen would need to
consider how to get an enclosed kennel to secure the animal, to bring the animal inside and take outside on
a leash, find a new home or turn over to the Animal Shelter. Towns with the proposed ordinance have done
it successfully.
Peter Scott stated one issue that came up in discussion is that the fence is considered secure basically if
the dog cannot get over, through or under it. The fence under the ordinance may be sufficient or insufficient
in fact vary for each animal so as described in the proposal was the only way to catch all in terms of secure.
Scott Plowman asked if it will be hard to enforce. Lou Kreidler responded that the enforceability was
another issue looked at the time of writing the ordinance. The problem with the current State law that our
ordinance coincides is the very specific time frame a dog cannot be chained or tethered for more than 4
2
hours. Under these circumstances it is difficult for the ACO to enforce the citizen is going to say the dog
was not on the chain long so unless an ACO is posted at the location the entire time it cannot be proved
otherwise.
Peter Scott replied there will be circumstances obviously where it is going to come down to what the
enforcers are able to do but on terms whether it is enforceable absolutely on a prosecute level. A
photograph of a dog restrained is fairly clear evidence that the dog has been unlawfully restrained. In terms
of enforcement on a prosecute level he does not think that is going to be an issue either they restrained the
dog or not. Obviously if the dog is are not tied up at the time the Animal Control Officer sees them the ACO
will not write them a citation but if they see the dog tied up I think it is fairly easy to prosecute. In terms of
whether it is easy to observe and enforce he defers to Katrena on how easy it will be for the ACO but knows
that ACO's do find animals chained up in yards all the time.
Katrena Mitchell responded that dogs tethered are seen all the time, that concerned calls are received and
when the Animal Control Officer (ACO) goes to check on a dog it is tied up in the back, front, or side yard.
The way the proposed ordinance is written it is very black and white you cannot do it, no gray areas, no
additional situations; not a judgment type of issue.
Dr. Carlston asked if there would be a transition period in which Katrena Mitchell replied that a time frame
had not been discussed but would probably be several months to give citizens the opportunity to make
alternative plans.
Lou Kreidler added Animal Services would have the ability to work with those citizens unable to construct a
restrain structure within the 30 days to issue a 60 or 90 day compliance plan but if not done within that time
frame a citation would be issued. The time line from today upon the Health Boards recommendation or not,
the revised provision proceeds to the ASAC meeting on the 9th then to City Council's last November
meeting. The ordinance would either go into effect 30 days later or not based on Council's decision. In that
30 day period Animal Control would do education, work with the media, and ACO's would put a notice on
the door of citizens to state the effective date it would no longer be allowable to chain or tether animals.
Lou Kreidler requested from the Board of Health a recommendation to go forward to City Council with the
proposal whether in favor or not of the ordinance. The City Council puts value and weight in the Health
Board recommendations.
Dr. Sutton requested a motion to recommend or not recommend the proposed Animal Services Ordinance
Restrain Requirements. Dr. Hill motioned to recommend, Dr. Carlston seconded the motion, and Scott
Plowman opposed. Dr. Sutton requested the notation of the significant reservation discussed on the issue
and the recommendation was passed by a majority not unanimous.
Dr. Sutton requested from Lou Kreidler an informal update on West Nile that Jim Redus the Public Health
Preparedness Specialist involved in tracking the West Nile provided information.
Jim Redus stated the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) as of Thursday October 25, 2012 that
28 new cases of West Nile Neuroinvasive was confirmed. Since the 22nd saw a slower pace from previous
that peaked at 30 and over per day. Total cases for the State are 1,711 with a breakdown of 785 for West
Nile Neuroinvasive and 926 for West Nile Fever. West Nile Neuroinvasaive main age is 57 years there are
neurology symptoms that can be accompanied with flu symptoms fever achy that do not get reported when
it gets into the neurological system it does cause syphilis symptoms that can result in death. The main age
for West Nile Fever is 50 years. The youngest case was 11 days old and oldest 100 years.
Lamb County had one more fatality that resulted in a total of 78 fatalities for the State with 76 being the
main age of fatality. The death rate for West Nile Fever remains steady about 4 % of all cases result in
fatalities roughly 1 in 22 it stays between a 4 and 5 fatality rate. Wichita County had 5 cases of the Fever
3
the bulk of the cases reside in Dallas, Denton, Tarrant and Travis counties that account for almost 1,000 of
the statewide cases and 33 of the 78 deaths. The trend is the older age group with 76 years being the age
of fatalities even though the average age for getting West Nile are those in the 50's.
Lou Kreidler stated the West Nile reached epidemic proportions in Texas that triggered extensive tracking.
Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties saw a surge not seen before that quickly became a large public health
issue in their area.
Jim Redus added that a couple days ago it was the second highest ever in our history since tracking began
and could exceed that.
IV. MEETING
The Board members unanimously agreed to move the December 28th meeting to January 25th
V. ADJOURN
Dr. Sutton requested a motion to adjourn. The motion was made by Dr. Clark and seconded by Robin
Moreno the motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 pm.
Richard Sutton, M.D., Chair, Lauren Jansen, M.S.N., Ph.D., Vice -Chair, or Robin Moreno, M.T., Secretary
Public Health Board
4